Liberal talk radio still alive and well!

[DiveCon]

Well, I think the truth lies somewhere in between what you think and what I think.

No, Bush didn't interview the hijackers, but are you aware of the Bush/Bin Ladin family ties?

Are you familiar with PNAC and what has been said in PNAC?

And isn't it odd Chaney had control of NORAD on 9-11? That's never happened before.

And why did Condy lie about "never imagining planes would be used as weapons.

There are a lot of inconsistencies with the Bush teams story.

If I'm a conspiracy theorist, you are a god damn fool. The Republicans could put anything past your dumb ass.

Let's put it this way; you fall right in with the crowd that warned us that Bush was involved in 9/11 and that before his term was over, he would declare martial law so he could remain as Prez. You people are hilarious. Bush and Chaney are gone fishing now. Nope, they didn't declare martial law and try to take over. But you keep believing your silly shit. I'll stick with the intelligent people who can at least make a decent argument for their cause.

I don't really care if you are liberal or conservative; just make a decent argument for your case. Your arguments are nothing short of pathetic.

Bush would have tried to do that if he thought he could get away with it.

Just like he and Chaney were trying soooo hard to start a war with IRaq. Again, read PNAC, or STFU.

And Bush used the war to push his radical economic agenda.

OMG, it's too much to explain if you are this clueless. Never mind. You lost, good bye.

bobo the moron trying to claim a win on the internets
LOL

 

[KittenKoder]

I love reading the idiotic comments nmade by KittenFarter. A minimum wage hamburg flipper who actually thinks her opinions matter. How sad.

LOL ... hamburger flippers can't make their own schedule and just drop off work for a nap, jog, or hike whenever they want like I do. I was once though ... many years ago, like so many people. However, without those hamburger flippers you'd starve ...

 

[Andrew2382]

now you hike? a few minutes agi you posted you do no physical activity...but now its jog and hiking

you are so full of shit

 

[KittenKoder]

now you hike? a few minutes agi you posted you do no physical activity...but now its jog and hiking

you are so full of shit

I said "can", as in I have the option, doesn't mean I do it. Just means I can if I wanted to. Though I do take trips to the store a lot, when I run out of Cheetos.

 

[Xenophon]

This is good news for the Air America listeners.

All three of them will have a new home.

 

[editec]

I don't want the Demcoratic news. I don't want the Republican news.

I just want the news, straight up and spin-free.

problem is, in our society someone (almost) always owns the media outlet.

You are aware, are you not, that thanks to a change in the media laws concerning monopoly we have lost about 80% of our INDEPENDENT and LOCAL media outlets in the last two decades, right?

It is the monopoliztion of the media, which is causing this derth of voices in the media, which is the REAL problem in my opinion.

The problem isn't that right wing media is more popular, that I have no problem with.

Its that there aren't enough LOCAL voices in our media anymore.

Hence instead of having multiple commentators that address local issues, and give our media many different points of view, we end up with onl yfew points of view coming out of of CENTRALIZED monopolies.

Incidetly, I do not think they CARE whether what they boradcast is liberal or conservative, either.

Just so long as they do not have to compete with other media outlets, they're happy.

I do NOT support this so called FAIRNESS in Broacasting system whereby the government decides what goes on the air.

I seriously do NOT support that bill.

But I also do not think allowing one media conglomerate to control the radios stations, TV stations and newspapers in one media market is good for our democratic republic either.

 

[michiganFats]

I'm not old as dirt like Editec, but just in my lifetime the news has changed significantly. The local news used to be local. During an hour long broadcast, about 50 minutes of it was local, and TV and radio stations covered different stories. The newspapers actually employed reporters to go dig up news that was happening locally. Not anymore.

Now, it doesn't matter which TV station you watch, all you're going to see is an anchor repeating an AP or Reuters story. The radio stations subscribe to news services, again culled from AP or Reuters. My hometown newspaper just repeats stories from other sources, guess which ones. There is some local news, but it's no longer the norm.

The Op-Eds aren't even independent anymore. My local paper is owned by Knight-Ridder. Just for kicks, I sometimes compare the op-eds in the Free Press to op-eds in other papers owned by Knight-Ridder. They are all obviously written by the same person, only the names below them change.

We definitely have a problem with our media, I just don't think that some talk-radio hosts are it.

 

[DiveCon]

I'm not old as dirt like Editec, but just in my lifetime the news has changed significantly. The local news used to be local. During an hour long broadcast, about 50 minutes of it was local, and TV and radio stations covered different stories. The newspapers actually employed reporters to go dig up news that was happening locally. Not anymore.

Now, it doesn't matter which TV station you watch, all you're going to see is an anchor repeating an AP or Reuters story. The radio stations subscribe to news services, again culled from AP or Reuters. My hometown newspaper just repeats stories from other sources, guess which ones. There is some local news, but it's no longer the norm.

The Op-Eds aren't even independent anymore. My local paper is owned by Knight-Ridder. Just for kicks, I sometimes compare the op-eds in the Free Press to op-eds in other papers owned by Knight-Ridder. They are all obviously written by the same person, only the names below them change.

We definitely have a problem with our media, I just don't think that some talk-radio hosts are it.

that isnt something new
thats been going on for over 20 years
most stories in newspapers 20 years ago were either AP or UPI
few were local
lol
thats why i find it so damned funny that some libs want to blame Reagan for this
what Reagan did was what he should have done
and, i really enjoy liberals spending millions of their OWN dollars to push something on the market that is neither wanted or needed
LOL

 

[KittenKoder]

I don't want the Demcoratic news. I don't want the Republican news.

I just want the news, straight up and spin-free.

problem is, in our society someone (almost) always owns the media outlet.

You are aware, are you not, that thanks to a change in the media laws concerning monopoly we have lost about 80% of our INDEPENDENT and LOCAL media outlets in the last two decades, right?

It is the monopoliztion of the media, which is causing this derth of voices in the media, which is the REAL problem in my opinion.

The problem isn't that right wing media is more popular, that I have no problem with.

Its that there aren't enough LOCAL voices in our media anymore.

Hence instead of having multiple commentators that address local issues, and give our media many different points of view, we end up with onl yfew points of view coming out of of CENTRALIZED monopolies.

Incidetly, I do not think they CARE whether what they boradcast is liberal or conservative, either.

Just so long as they do not have to compete with other media outlets, they're happy.

I do NOT support this so called FAIRNESS in Broacasting system whereby the government decides what goes on the air.

I seriously do NOT support that bill.

But I also do not think allowing one media conglomerate to control the radios stations, TV stations and newspapers in one media market is good for our democratic republic either.

We have local media ... and local reporters in the conglomerates ... you know what ... they're both about nothing but ratings. They're all idiots who read teleprompters or spout off their own ideals without facts to back it up.

 

[sealybobo]

problem is, in our society someone (almost) always owns the media outlet.

You are aware, are you not, that thanks to a change in the media laws concerning monopoly we have lost about 80% of our INDEPENDENT and LOCAL media outlets in the last two decades, right?

It is the monopoliztion of the media, which is causing this derth of voices in the media, which is the REAL problem in my opinion.

The problem isn't that right wing media is more popular, that I have no problem with.

Its that there aren't enough LOCAL voices in our media anymore.

Hence instead of having multiple commentators that address local issues, and give our media many different points of view, we end up with onl yfew points of view coming out of of CENTRALIZED monopolies.

Incidetly, I do not think they CARE whether what they boradcast is liberal or conservative, either.

Just so long as they do not have to compete with other media outlets, they're happy.

I do NOT support this so called FAIRNESS in Broacasting system whereby the government decides what goes on the air.

I seriously do NOT support that bill.

But I also do not think allowing one media conglomerate to control the radios stations, TV stations and newspapers in one media market is good for our democratic republic either.

We have local media ... and local reporters in the conglomerates ... you know what ... they're both about nothing but ratings. They're all idiots who read teleprompters or spout off their own ideals without facts to back it up.

Setting aside the shrill and nonsensical efforts of those who suggest the corporate-owned media in America is "liberal," the situation with regard to talk radio is particularly perplexing: It doesn't even carry a pretense of political balance. While the often-understated Al Gore recently came right out and said that much of the corporate-owned media are "part and parcel of the Republican Party," those who listen to talk radio know it has swung so far to the right that even Dwight Eisenhower or Barry Goldwater would be shocked.
Average Americans across the nation are wondering how could it be that a small fringe of the extreme right has so captured the nation's airwaves? And done it in such an effective fashion that when they attack folks like Tom Daschle, he and his family actually get increased numbers of death threats? How is it that ex-felons like John Poindexter's protégée Ollie North and Nixon's former burglar G. Gordon Liddy have become stars? How is it that ideologues like Rush Limbaugh can openly promote hard-right Republicans, and avoid a return of the dead-since-Reagan Fairness Doctrine (and get around the desire of the American public for fairness) by claiming what they do is "just entertainment"?
First, in a nation that considers itself a democratic republic, the institutions of democracy are imperiled by a lack of balanced national debate on issues of critical importance. As both Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia learned, a steady radio drumbeat of a single viewpoint - from either end of the political spectrum - is not healthy for democracy when opposing voices are marginalized.
The extreme fringe of the right wing dominates talk radio not because all radio listeners are right-wingers, but, instead, because the right wingers and their investors were the first to the market with a consistent and predictable programming slant, making right-wing-talk the first large niche to mature in the newly emergent talk segment of the radio industry. Listeners always know what they'll get with Rush or one of his clones, and programming to a loyal and identifiable audience is both the dream and the necessity of every radio station's management.
But that response doesn't mean - as conservatives in the radio industry suggest - that there is no market for progressive talk radio. What it means is that there's not yet an awakening in the broadcast industry to the reality that they're missing a huge unserved market. But, like with right-wing talk, for balanced or progressive talk radio to succeed it must be programmed consistently throughout the day (and with talent as outrageous and interesting as Rush and his most successful clones).
The station programmers I've talked with who've tried a progressive or centrist talker for an hour or two, only to get angry responses from dittoheads, think this means only extreme-right-wing talkers (and, ideally, convicted felons or those who "declare war on liberals") will make money for their station. And, because they've already carved out the hard-right-Republican-talk niche and alienated the progressive/Democrat niche, they're right.
But for stations who want to get into talk in a market already dominated by right-wing talkers on competing stations, the irrefutable evidence of national elections and polls shows that believing only right-wingers will bring listeners (and advertisers) is a mistake. All they need do is what anybody with music programming experience would recommend: identify their niche and stick with it. (Cynics say stations won't program Democrats because owners and management are all "rich Republicans": to this, I say they should listen to some of the music being profitably produced and programmed by America's largest publishing and broadcasting corporations. Profits, for better or worse, are relatively opinion-free.)
By running Democratic/progressive-talk in a programming day free of right-wing talkers, stations will open up a new niche and ride it to success. This is a particularly huge opportunity for music stations who look with envy at the success of talk stations in their market, but haven't been willing to jump in because all the best right-wing talkers are already on the competition: all they need do is put on progressive talkers, and they'll open a new, unserved, and profitable niche.